nanog mailing list archives
Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
From: Simon Higgs <simon () higgs com>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 16:44:28 -0700
At 01:20 AM 5/2/2002 -0700, Scott Francis wrote:
The average customer buying a "web-enabled" phone doesn't need a publicly-routeable IP. I challenge anybody to demonstrate why a cell phone needs a public IP. It's a PHONE, not a server.
I'm not buying a phone I can't run ssh from. End of story. My current phone does all that and more. Why step back into the dark ages of analog-type services?
Best Regards, Simon -- ###
Current thread:
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?, (continued)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Steven J. Sobol (May 04)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Scott Francis (May 02)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Jake Khuon (May 02)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Scott Francis (May 02)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Steven J. Sobol (May 02)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Peter Bierman (May 02)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Scott Francis (May 02)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Peter Bierman (May 02)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Scott Francis (May 03)
- Message not available
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Scott Francis (May 02)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Simon Higgs (May 02)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Dan Hollis (May 02)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Scott Francis (May 03)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Valdis . Kletnieks (May 03)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Scott Francis (May 03)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Avleen Vig (May 03)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Steven J. Sobol (May 04)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Scott Francis (May 03)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? mike harrison (May 01)